The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Support for the resolution to strip Jamie Dimon of his chairmanship of JPMorgan was at 40 percent at the last annual meeting in 2012.

I predict it will be higher at the annual meeting on 15th May.

But will it be a majority? And even if it is, will the board take any action?

Despite the current love fest (see below) for Dimon’s continuance as chairman from some quarters, the support will be higher this year. ISS has again recommended that shareholders vote for splitting the roles and the election of an independent chairman. Glass Lewis has also recommended that shareholders vote to separate the jobs. Many large pension funds have voiced their support already, though some remain on the fence, and there really seems to be no good reason why Dimon shouldn’t relinquish the role and just get on with being CEO.

What this is not is a vote on Dimon’s effectiveness as a CEO, nor is it a Dimon witch hunt, it is simply a vote on what the bank calls the “most effective leadership model.”

It is not necessarily the right leadership model to have an independent chairman at every company, but, given the chairman’s key role in oversight of management, in most cases it is. That’s a role that a CEO cannot undertake. And the more complex the company, and the greater the need for oversight, the more likely it is that the roles should be split. If the JPMorgan board of directors feels that the bank is not complex and that there is little need for authoritative oversight, then they should support Dimon’s continuance in both roles; but I don’t really believe that they think that.

And how independent is that board? Ellen Futter – who drew the largest amount of “against” votes last year – has been on the board 16 years. James Crown has been on 22 years. Laban Jackson has been on 20 years. Lee Raymond (chairman and CEO of Exxon, by the way) has been on 26 years, and Stephen Burke has been on 10 years. That’s a lot of years of fellowship and doesn’t make for the most objective view of Dimon (who has been on the board 13 years). And these aren’t even all of the directors against whom Glass Lewis and ISS are recommending a “no” vote.

The battle for control of JPMorgan has been drawing an enormous amount of attention. A recent piece included some hilarious quotations from Dimon backers, most of which were irrelevant to the situation. For example, CEO (and chairman) Warren Buffett said in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s Betty Liu on May 2 in Omaha, Nebraska : “I’m 100 percent for Jamie, I couldn’t think of a better chairman.” Of course, Buffett was facing a challenge to his own occupation of both roles so it is unlikely that he would say anything else. Ken Langone, co-founder of , called Dimon the “finest CEO across any business in America.” He continued the love fest on Bloomberg Television on April 26, saying: “I love Jamie, I know him well personally, I love him.” If he is the finest CEO in America, then why would his relinquishing the chairmanship prevent him from continuing in that pre-eminent position? Langone was CEO and chairman of Geeknet, he was chairman and CEO of Invemed Associates, so he is hardly likely to support a split in the roles either.

Then there appear to be fears that Dimon will simply resign if stripped of his chairmanship and that there is no succession plan in place. If that is the case then the board will be even more culpable than it already is.

Ultimately, though, I really do not understand why so many US CEOs are so desperately hanging on to their chairmanships. UK CEOs were stripped of them years ago. It did not lead to wholesale departures. It did not lead to economic collapse (at least no more than anywhere else) and it did lead to increased oversight and board independence. Was it the panacea for all ills? Clearly not, given the woes of RBS, Barclays, Aviva, etc, etc. Would these have been even worse without an independent chairman? Probably.